We get into discussions of Chiarelli's draft record on here at least once every six month. Sometimes, it ventures back and we discuss the whole sordid history of Bruins drafts going back to 78-80 when, over three drafts, the Bruins collected Secord, Bourque, McCrimmon, Crowder, Krushelnyski, Pederson, Fergus, Kasper, Hillier and Thelven. Ah, the days.

It's interesting in this era because the team is at the top of the league due largely to trades, smart signings, and drafts just before the Chiarelli regime. In other words, it's about the only real hole in Chiarelli's resume. You have to wonder why, don't you? I mean, you watch the Behind the B footage, and they clearly have some key organizational thinking about what this team looks for in players. I'll cite the argument about Seguin. Chiarelli called him "another one of those 30-35 goal scorers..." and the discussion moved to the idea of trading him as a result. I take that to mean that this regime sees 30-35 goal scorers as bad value for the money you have to pay them. You pay them close to what a 40+ goalscorer gets, but their impact isn't comparably high.

When you hear something like that, you get the sense that they have a very complex set of ideas about what kind of player they want, yet we've consistently seen them miss and sometimes miss badly on draft day. Spooner has now played more games than Hamill did before the final year of his Bruins contract. Fraser will get there with one more game. Caron has played the most games of any Chiarelli pick not named Seguin. Colborne can't make an impact in Calgary. Calgary. But we know all this because it gets rehearsed so often.

What is the issue? Lack of credible scouting? I doubt that, though the second shakeup of Chiarelli's career suggests that may be part of it. Bad risk/reward thinking? Maybe. Hamill seemed like a risk because of his size and the fact that his great offensive year came out of nowhere. Colborne was the big, soft, might not want it kid with great hands. Subban's a goalie, and one who excelled in Jr. on reflexes and athleticism. For most of these guys, there was a potential high reward, but also a good chance they could crash and burn.

I wonder if there's some quality they look for - a quality that would make the kid a good fit in Boston - and that quality is just really hard to judge in an 18 year old kid. Professionalism. Emotional intelligence. That kind of thing. It might explain why they can identify guys like Boychuk and McQuaid and Bartkowski and Krug, but not similarly effective players in the draft.

Maybe that's not it, but rather than the usual "Chia Pete stinks at Drafting" (so far, yes...) I wonder if anyone has any theories on why.

Maybe that's not it, but rather than the usual "Chia Pete stinks at Drafting" (so far, yes...) I wonder if anyone has any theories on why.

Theories. THEORIES. So don't get your knickers into a knot. If I *really* knew what I was talking about I'd have a job writing or I'd be working in the NHL, I wish a few of the posters out there would admit as much.

* Say what you will about Central Scouting, yes, it's an opinion, but it's a pretty decent opinion. It seems to me that the theme of Bruins scouting was to prove they were smarter than CS and would go out of their way to pick guys CS ranked way lower (or maybe not at all).

* It seems to me they went out of their way to shop for local produce and engage in nepotism. - Cross, Benning and Gryz and a few others.

* Svensson, the scout from Sweden. Been in the system for 23 years. Very little to show for it. Lots of NHL players come from Sweden and the Bruins only got a couple or 3 or 4 over the years with PJ being the best of them.

* Lack of transparency. Watching Behind the B, reading and listening to the interviews it doesn't seem the Bruins are as transparent about their scouting as they are other parts of the organization. True, they might want to keep their cards close to the vest and not reveal much about what they're looking for, but I would expect to hear a little more than I'm hearing.

Here's a thought that is probably way out there, but ties into the risk/reward thinking.

Your core is reasonably young and solid. So you go to make a pick and the options are player 1 who is almost certain to become a B player, and player 2 who will most likely be a C, but has some quality that suggests he could be an A instead.

As a B player, player 1 is only likely to crack the lineup if there are injuries or FA departures. If you don't plan on opening a roster spot for the player, take a chance on player 2 being an A player that forces you to make a spot.

If this is the type of thinking going on, it should lead to a lot more failures than successes. Though, that may look like noise compared to the normal success (or rather failure) rate of NHL prospects.

If the CHL scouts could be more like the AHL scouts that grabbed Khudobin, McQuaid, Boychuk and Bartkowski. In the AHL, players coming from the CHL, start to separate themselves. Example - Spooner this year, he probably grew some and gained strength. How can you tell this when viewing the prospect in the OHL, Q or WHL. I say watch them against their better peers in WJC camps and All-Star type atmospheres.

I've noticed now Chiarelli's European scouts are now looking at how young players are performing in an All-Star type tournament(s) like the WJC (Arnesson and Cehlerik). He takes players that, not only made their countries teams but performed really well against NA competition. Toronto's selection of Rask during his international play. Tuukka was the MVP of a few tournaments.

Marchand, Bergeron, Stuart, Krejci, Sobotka and Lucic upped their games during CHL playoffs and tournaments. That was definitely MOC scouts formula right before PC took over.

It is an excellent question. I am constantly looking at the draft history, and the thing that stands out most to me is that after the first 8 to 10, the drop off from year to year is USUALLY pretty steep. Yes there are so great picks later, but trying to pick players that are 18 years old is far too difficult. That singular reason, is why I don't hold a poor drafting record over the Bruins.

Also, if you are using the Detroit RedWing model of getting great players late in the draft, such as Datysuk andZetterberg, then here's a thought. If they were so great, why didn't Detroit pick them a few rounds earlier to ensure they got them. Pure luck in my books. *** don't get me wrong, Detroit is a Class A organiztion, and they do everything really well***

The last great year the Bruins drafted was June of 2006, and PC was hired in May 2006. Since then it hasn't been very awe-inspiring. But some years Eugene Malkin is available in the #2 slot, and some years it's Tyler Seguin.

Defining success as more than X games can be misleading. Teams are going to give their 1st pick all the opportunity to succeed, because it makes the GM look good. So I don't think that is valid.

It is an excellent question. I am constantly looking at the draft history, and the thing that stands out most to me is that after the first 8 to 10, the drop off from year to year is USUALLY pretty steep. Yes there are so great picks later, but trying to pick players that are 18 years old is far too difficult. That singular reason, is why I don't hold a poor drafting record over the Bruins.

Also, if you are using the Detroit RedWing model of getting great players late in the draft, such as Datysuk andZetterberg, then here's a thought. If they were so great, why didn't Detroit pick them a few rounds earlier to ensure they got them. Pure luck in my books. *** don't get me wrong, Detroit is a Class A organiztion, and they do everything really well***

The last great year the Bruins drafted was June of 2006, and PC was hired in May 2006. Since then it hasn't been very awe-inspiring. But some years Eugene Malkin is available in the #2 slot, and some years it's Tyler Seguin.

Defining success as more than X games can be misleading. Teams are going to give their 1st pick all the opportunity to succeed, because it makes the GM look good. So I don't think that is valid.

I agree. The B's didn't do a good job taking Lucic in the second round. They were lucky he was there and they're lucky for what he's turned into. In hindsight, I think it's Toews, Kessel, Lucic going 1,2,3.

As for the B's putrid drafting, I put it mostly on the scouts and slightly on the constant need to pick local players.

I agree. The B's didn't do a good job taking Lucic in the second round. They were lucky he was there and they're lucky for what he's turned into. In hindsight, I think it's Toews, Kessel, Lucic going 1,2,3.

As for the B's putrid drafting, I put it mostly on the scouts and slightly on the constant need to pick local players.

It is an excellent question. I am constantly looking at the draft history, and the thing that stands out most to me is that after the first 8 to 10, the drop off from year to year is USUALLY pretty steep. Yes there are so great picks later, but trying to pick players that are 18 years old is far too difficult. That singular reason, is why I don't hold a poor drafting record over the Bruins.

Also, if you are using the Detroit RedWing model of getting great players late in the draft, such as Datysuk andZetterberg, then here's a thought. If they were so great, why didn't Detroit pick them a few rounds earlier to ensure they got them. Pure luck in my books. *** don't get me wrong, Detroit is a Class A organiztion, and they do everything really well***

The last great year the Bruins drafted was June of 2006, and PC was hired in May 2006. Since then it hasn't been very awe-inspiring. But some years Eugene Malkin is available in the #2 slot, and some years it's Tyler Seguin.

Defining success as more than X games can be misleading. Teams are going to give their 1st pick all the opportunity to succeed, because it makes the GM look good. So I don't think that is valid.

I agree. The B's didn't do a good job taking Lucic in the second round. They were lucky he was there and they're lucky for what he's turned into. In hindsight, I think it's Toews, Kessel, Lucic going 1,2,3.

As for the B's putrid drafting, I put it mostly on the scouts and slightly on the constant need to pick local players.

2 points.

1- PC got hired a month before this draft, so how much of these choices were his, and what was his impact on the decision. Hard say.

2- If Lucic was so high on the list, why didn't they take him 37, instead of 50th. Taking Yuri Alexandrov before Milan doesn't look genius. He's yet to play a game in the NHL.

The real genius there was Craig Patrick. He pulled off one of the biggest robberies in the history of all sport drafts when he laid in the weeds and waiting until the 3th round, pick 67, to select Sweet Hands Johnson.

It is an excellent question. I am constantly looking at the draft history, and the thing that stands out most to me is that after the first 8 to 10, the drop off from year to year is USUALLY pretty steep. Yes there are so great picks later, but trying to pick players that are 18 years old is far too difficult. That singular reason, is why I don't hold a poor drafting record over the Bruins.

Also, if you are using the Detroit RedWing model of getting great players late in the draft, such as Datysuk andZetterberg, then here's a thought. If they were so great, why didn't Detroit pick them a few rounds earlier to ensure they got them. Pure luck in my books. *** don't get me wrong, Detroit is a Class A organiztion, and they do everything really well***

The last great year the Bruins drafted was June of 2006, and PC was hired in May 2006. Since then it hasn't been very awe-inspiring. But some years Eugene Malkin is available in the #2 slot, and some years it's Tyler Seguin.

Defining success as more than X games can be misleading. Teams are going to give their 1st pick all the opportunity to succeed, because it makes the GM look good. So I don't think that is valid.

I agree. The B's didn't do a good job taking Lucic in the second round. They were lucky he was there and they're lucky for what he's turned into. In hindsight, I think it's Toews, Kessel, Lucic going 1,2,3.

As for the B's putrid drafting, I put it mostly on the scouts and slightly on the constant need to pick local players.

It wasn't luck at all that landed Lucic in round 2. I clearly remember people being somewhat surprised that he was picked as high as he was, especially since he was coming off of a 19 point season. Then they snatched up Marchand 21 picks later. If we're going to bash PC for his "putrid drafting" then we should at least acknowledge the few times when he hit it out of the park.

They definitely had a great 2006 draft. 2007-2009? We can probably just forget about those.

Since 2010, I think they've been OK. Seguin was an obvious pick, as Gudbranson was a pretty distant 3rd in most people's eyes (even though he was probably more of a "Bruin" type than Seguin). Spooner will likely be a good player, and everyone was psyched about the Knight pick, who people were saying would have been a top 15 pick had it not been for his diabetes. I think Camara was drafted in this class as well.....from everything I hear, he kind of sounds like a Paille-Thornton love-child. If they could find a moderately skilled enforcer out of a 3rd rounder, I don't think that should be considered a "miss".

2011 appears to be pretty good also. Hamilton will be every bit of the stud that he's been talked up to be (even though it works out, I think it was pretty obvious that the teams ahead of the Bruins dropped the ball on him..Chiarelli was so pumped to pick him). Khochlachev might have something; I think everyone knew he would be a high-risk, high reward type of player.

2012? Who knows. It all depends on Subban. I don't know if we'll find out on him for at least another two years. However, as a basis for comparison, Rask had a .905 SV% his first year in the AHL; Subban has a .911 so far this year. Hard to judge a goalie based on that stat in his first year of professional hockey, especially when the Bruins have kind of drafted different players (non-stay-at-home defensemen) than what they use.

What I find ridiculous around here is the impatience expected of drafted players from posters around here.

Do you guys not realize that the Bruins have a lineup that is hard to crack and signed to longer term contracts ? And because of this does extended time in the AHL mean that they are not worthy of where they were picked ?

Think about it. They are still developing. Some will turn into solid NHLers down the road.......and some won't. But in a time frame that is reasonable.......not yours.

Baffling expectations of drafted Bruins seems to be the question around here............not the drafted players.

What I find ridiculous around here is the impatience expected of drafted players from posters around here.

Do you guys not realize that the Bruins have a lineup that is hard to crack and signed to longer term contracts ? And because of this does extended time in the AHL mean that they are not worthy of where they were picked ?

Think about it. They are still developing. Some will turn into solid NHLers down the road.......and some won't. But in a time frame that is reasonable.......not yours.

Baffling expectations of drafted Bruins seems to be the question around here............not the drafted players.

What I find ridiculous is:

1. Since 2007, the B's have two goals from players drafted outside of the first round. Thank God for Lane MacDermid.

2. Since 2007, the B's have a total of 16 goals outside of the Top 10.

If there's general dissagreement about what constitutes good drafting, maybe the first thing is to quantify that. I've never been too excited about the draft. Just impatient I guess, but it's a small percentage of all those kids going through the draft, that ever make the NHL, and so many more that dissapoint.

Anyway, we could nail this thing somewhat, if we allowed each other some slack on some of the descriptors. The Lucic thing is a good example. I don't see how anybody deserves much credit for picking him when they did. Dez brings up a good point though. The industry projected him to go lower, so that does make "some" difference.

There are so many intangibles, and so many factors to be considered, it's pretty tough to come up with an excercise that will give some clarity.

This statement is hopelessly subjective, but I think every team in the league would have picked Seguin at #2, so if you agree, he(and other picks like that) don't even get in on the discussion. Who you pick is all about who's left....who the other guys didn't pick.

I think an indepth, purely scientific analysis of the draft, and it's results would boil down to pretty much one thing. It's a crap shoot.